Could HTML 5 Kill Flash, Silverlight?

While Adobe, Microsoft, and Sun duke it out with proprietary technologies for implementing multimedia on the Web, HTML 5 has the potential to “eat these vendors’ lunches”, offering Web experiences based on an industry standard. In fact, one expressed goal of the standard is to move the Web away from proprietary technologies such as Flash, Silverlight, and JavaFX. “It would be a terrible step backward if humanity’s major development platform [the Web] was controlled by a single vendor the way that previous platforms such as Windows have been,” says HTML 5 co-editor Ian Hickson, a Google employee. But whether HTML 5 and its Canvas technology will displace proprietary plug-ins “really depends on what developers do”, says Firefox technical lead Vlad Vukicevic. It also depends on Microsoft, the only company involved in the HTML 5 effort that is both a browser developer and an RIA tool developer.

27 Comments

Maybe so, but it might free us from the tyranny of a poorly engineered program that performs inconsistently across OS’s, frequently brings your browser/computer to its knees, and takes so many system resources that the crappy quality video it’s playing stutters like a nightmare.

Maybe so, but it might free us from the tyranny of a poorly engineered program that performs inconsistently across OS’s, frequently brings your browser/computer to its knees, and takes so many system resources that the crappy quality video it’s playing stutters like a nightmare.

Of course, you’re mostly referring to Flash here I would guess.

While I hope for the same – I think it’ll be a long time before Flash is rendered “irrelevant” at this point. And before it’s all over, my bets are that the official Adobe Flash Player source is opened up to extend the lifespan of the technology so that they can sell software to create it.

Maybe so, but it might free us from the tyranny of a poorly engineered program that performs inconsistently across OS’s, frequently brings your browser/computer to its knees, and takes so many system resources that the crappy quality video it’s playing stutters like a nightmare.

Remember not too long ago how we could take an ‘old’ computer and still make it useful for at least web browsing? I have notebooks and PCs that have CPU speeds that are more than enough for their usage, but for that one exception; web browsing. Even the smallest of Flash ads can just drag even a 2Ghz machine to a crawl! Go to PBS Frontline to watch episodes online, look how sadly they have moved from Real/WMV to Flash. I still do not understand the logic or reason to move motion video to Flash. And now we have HD Flash videos…uggh.

I honestly could care less about what ever @&#*ing technology is in use, whether it be a Flash replacement, Silverlight, or HTML5, so long as a dual core 2.2Ghz computer no longer feels like a 486. All the talk about what X, Y, or Z can do is meaningless when users either can not or do not enjoy it. And while I do enjoy Firefox, fact of the matter is the primary reason for it’s usage for me is the ability to have a Flash block plugin.

Sorry to rant, but there is nothing in this world I despise more than Flash. I guess you could call me an anti-Flash fanboy.

Just the other day, my computer came to a crawl, which really does not happen to often under Linux. At first I couldn’t figure out which of my running programs was causing the problem. Then it hit me – Firefox was open on a website with flash adverts. Changing to another URL or simply closing Firefox, and my system ran at full speed again.

It’s just amazing how flash can bring an average system to its knees. I am using a P4 2.4Ghz CPU with 1Gig memory, running Ubuntu 7.10 (with compiz disabled).

I really dislike Flash now and also installed one of those flash blocker plugins.

Maybe so, but it might free us from the tyranny of a poorly engineered program that performs inconsistently across OS’s, frequently brings your browser/computer to its knees, and takes so many system resources that the crappy quality video it’s playing stutters like a nightmare.

I don’t think I’d have a problem with Silverlight if Microsoft turned around tomorrow and signed an agreement with the Open Innovation Network where the patents on their technologies are for defensive only and that third parties can implement it free of charge (but can’t call it .NET unless they pay a fee – like how you can’t call it Java unless you pay a fee and it is certified).

The problem with Sliverlight has less to do with the design and more to do with the legal side; if there was no legal side and Microsoft was more open in working with opensource implementations – in otherwords, they didn’t see them as a threat, I’d be more than happy to see a movement away from Flash.

the HTML5 group really wants Ogg and Theora, but they’ve been demoted from “required” to “optional” which means things like iPhone will just use h.264 because it’s already included and paid for.

The trouble is that with free codex demoted to “optional” you as a host will HAVE to support two different versions.. Imagine if we had to tool all our web pages because companies refused to support PNG and JPEG and GIF at the same time, and every body just supported one in their browser.

On a side note, I’d like to see people stop talking about HTML5 as a “flash/Silverlight killer” and just as a good chance to push an upgrade to web pages. I think the BIGGER push should be to push HTML5 in to the realm of what XHTML tried to do and make it validated, and non-backward-compatible with older versions… We’re stuck with XHTML not really doing it’s job because they didn’t force “strict” from the start and they don’t force browsers to identify when they’re not in “strict” mode. What needs to be stopped for the web to really move forward are pages coded to HTML 3.2.4.1 1/2.

The biggest bane right now is browsers with “almost” support for standards but because developers are allowed to write crumby pages that don’t meet one or the other it’s just a muddy mess and you can’t even market new features because not enough people have the right version. I think they should start focusing on a multi-step roll out 5.1, 5.2, ect in 4-6 month increments to keep browser makers and web developers in sync.. and to keep the hype up about using new versions because everybody will be doing it.

I think they should start focusing on a multi-step roll out 5.1, 5.2, ect in 4-6 month increments to keep browser makers and web developers in sync.. and to keep the hype up about using new versions because everybody will be doing it.

Well, that would be the best way for the W3C to lose all their credibility. Who would want to keep up with moving standards? Writing a secure browser is already a tedious task. Having to deal with two or three new standards per year is just going to overburden the poor developers, especially if they have to cope with compliance tests like ACID. As for web developers, only an handful care about the latest technologies, let alone following the standards perfectly. As for end users, most are conservative with their software. Now, they would have to update twice a year to see the latest and greatest? Of course, these users already have to upgrade Flash and Silverlight… However, this process is quite seamless, at least on the major platforms (Windows, OS X). And it’s not like updating the whole browser, which usually comes with new features and/or interface that are screwing up the minds of tech-challenged people.

In the end, everybody will be alienated, except the vocal cheerleader minority. A good standard isn’t an open-source project.

Talking of open standards, I don’t understand why they are bloating HTML 5 with all those RIA features. Wouldn’t it just be better to add them in another specification? Of course, the adoption rate could be show, but HTML 5 would show up sooner.

the HTML5 group really wants Ogg and Theora, but they’ve been demoted from “required” to “optional” which means things like iPhone will just use h.264 because it’s already included and paid for.

The trouble is that with free codex demoted to “optional” you as a host will HAVE to support two different versions.. Imagine if we had to tool all our web pages because companies refused to support PNG and JPEG and GIF at the same time, and every body just supported one in their browser.

If you are building a web client, and there are optional codecs, at least on of which is free, then why wouldn’t all web clients include the free one and only proprietary web clients include the non-free ones as well?

Why wouldn’t ALL browsers try to be compliant with this? Proprietary ones could try to sell non-free stuff such as Flash and Silverlight as extra capability, but they won’t have much show if the can’t also do the free codec stuff as well.

the HTML5 group really wants Ogg and Theora, but they’ve been demoted from “required” to “optional” which means things like iPhone will just use h.264 because it’s already included and paid for.

True; I wish the h264 licensing had moved to something where playback is free of charge but encoding you have to pay for – when it comes to royalty payments. Right now alot of developments are being held up, not through lack of technology but because of idiotic patents and royalty agreements that place profit before long term development of a marketplace where individuals compete on merit rather than cornering off parts of the market and erecting barriers to interoperability.

the HTML5 group really wants Ogg and Theora, but they’ve been demoted from “required” to “optional” which means things like iPhone will just use h.264 because it’s already included and paid for.

True; I wish the h264 licensing had moved to something where playback is free of charge but encoding you have to pay for – when it comes to royalty payments. Right now alot of developments are being held up, not through lack of technology but because of idiotic patents and royalty agreements that place profit before long term development of a marketplace where individuals compete on merit rather than cornering off parts of the market and erecting barriers to interoperability.

Plenty of development going on right now with Theora. The decoder (for playback) is basically stable, and they are working intently (Thusnelda project) on the encoder to achieve better and better performance (in terms of quality and compression factor at any given bitrate).

With Theora, Vorbis and HTML5 (as implemented in Firefox 3.5, and sure to be implemented soon in other browsers) both the encoding and the decoding are free (no cost) and unencumbered by patent claims (freedom), and development continues apace.

There is absolutely no reason why this should not be adopted as an interoperability standard across all platforms that can access the web.

Can individual platforms, such as the iPhone, afford to NOT include open codecs? I’m sure the competition will be able to render such content.

However as a general web language… do you really want it to replace flash/silverlight…?

Not to mention, I like the clean way something some silverlight works. The heavy programming stuff is totally separate from the layout. Not to mention, you can leverage years of .NET code as well as powerful IDEs that have been built over many years. You can’t just discount this stuff.

I still cannot stand these mega HTML files with javascript function littered everywhere.

I like HTML as the glue layer of the internet.

Sometimes glue layers forget they are the glue and try and be the beginning and end of all solutions. They tend to fail and become monstrosities… (some mega perl scripts come flooding to my mind).

That’s what people wanted and it’s a good idea. The problem is that HTML/CSS/JS isn’t the way to do it. It’s using a document presentation framework to generate interactive content. Despite it’s bad implementation, I think Flash and friends are the way forward. We can leave HTML/CSS/JS for content, and use something else for the real webapps. AJAX is a joke and should not be the future of web development.

That’s what people wanted and it’s a good idea. The problem is that HTML/CSS/JS isn’t the way to do it. It’s using a document presentation framework to generate interactive content. Despite it’s bad implementation, I think Flash and friends are the way forward. We can leave HTML/CSS/JS for content, and use something else for the real webapps. AJAX is a joke and should not be the future of web development.

I won’t discuss the “It’s a good idea” thing, it’s a subjective thing and we’re very unlikely to see opinions changing in either camp.

But a less touchy subjective thing: I’d love if we could do as you say, making those two completely disjoint sets.

No HTML/CSS/JS to Web Apps. No Flash/SilverLight/Java for freaking DOCUMENTS!

If only they came up with something like “Java Web Start” so that you could have clear separation between Documents (which links to a) Web App (Opened in a different Tab/Window/whatever).

Ok, I’m not saying this is the “Right Thing” or anything. It’s just that I would like it better that way.

Sometimes people forget that HTML and web browsers were designed to view HTML content, not play games, watch videos, listen to sound, chat with others, etc.

At some point, the web browser *became* the OS… quite sad.

What we see today is a natural evolution to meet the demands of what people want – the problem isn’t the technology or there lack of it but how it is used. I remember years ago when Flash and Shockwave was out; it was abused like no bodies business; bloated web site entry pages, bloated borders and animated menus. It was horrific.

Fast forward to 2009 and things have changed; we don’t see the wide abuse to the extent it was many years ago – but its about delivering good development tools as well so that there is wise use of the technology; technology that is used rather than abused as in the past.